Naming for Indexing and Clarity
Even if one follows conservative file-naming practices, the question still remains: what should we actually call files and folders?
I was a DOS baby, which was limited to eight characters (the file name), a dot ., and then three more characters (the file extension). Those were rough days, leading to very cryptic file names.
Today, most systems will allow 255 characters or more. While there are certain limitations, particularly for CD-ROM creation under certain file systems, computer users today have the freedom to name files as descriptively as they wish, provided they use the a-z, 0-9, and - (hyphen) limits described earlier.
Naming files and folders is an important task, not just for the creator, who'd like to be able to find her stuff easily, but also for end-users and even search engines. Consider the two following example files:
sresme05.htm schmidt-resume-2005.htm
From the second example, it's possible to decipher the first. But the second file is clearly superior to the second one, at least in terms of clarity; is there any question in your mind as to what the file contains? It's even possible to guess who's resume it is, and perhaps when the file was created or updated.
As an added bonus, if this file were posted on a wed site and someone searches for "schmidt" and "resume," the name of this file will probably help the search engine rank the page higher in the list of search results. Which, for potential job-seeker Schmidt, is a bonus.
Moving from General to Specific
But what if this file were named differently? Consider the same information, but rearranged a few different ways:
schmidt-resume-2005.htm schmidt-2005-resume.htm resume-2005-schmidt.htm resume-schmidt-2005.htm 2005-schmidt-resume.htm 2005-resume-schmidt.htm
All six filenames contain the same information. Which ones strike you as the most effective? Effectiveness involves context; let's say, for example, that this guy Schmidt has a version of his resume from every single year since 1996. In that case, it would probably be best for him to leave the year at the end of the file name, e.g.,
schmidt-resume-1996.htm schmidt-resume-1997.htm schmidt-resume-1998.htm ... schmidt-resume-2005.htm
In this case, from Schmidt's perspective, the file names move from the most general information (Schmidt wrote it) and move to the more specific information (in 1996). And if Schmidt also keeps a list of his cover letters and resumes, he'd have a nice alphanumeric listing like this:
schmidt-coverletter-1996.htm schmidt-coverletter-1997.htm schmidt-coverletter-1998.htm schmidt-resume-1996.htm schmidt-resume-1997.htm schmidt-resume-1998.htm
Now, this isn't taking into account the fact that programs like Windows Explorer or the Macintosh Finder can store dates with the programs, and sort them accordingly. We're talking purely about file names themselves. And therefore, it would be completely arguable that Schmidt ought to list his stuff year first, so he (or someone he authorizes) could catalog everything he wrote in, say, 1996.
The point here is that there's not any one best way to name files, aside from clarity and consistency. But the notion of moving from general to specific information in a file name is helpful—and contingent. What is "general" and what is "specific" will vary according to the user and task.
Updated on Sun. Aug. 26 2007 at 05:13PM